A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

The Gordon Lewis Center for Christian Thought and Culture will host a seminar on Christianity and art-making in later May. Please stay tuned to find out the details. The instructor and discussion leader will be R. Wesley Hurd, painter and philosopher and my long-time friend and ministry partner.

My response to the Jars of Clay singer who endorses same-sex marriage:

The love of Jesus is never expressed against his character and that of the Bible, which fulfills and authorizes. God ordained heterosexual monogamy as the pattern of God's creation and design. Same sex couples can no more be married than a square can be a circle. To pretend otherwise, is simply sin. To be an influential Christian and to claim otherwise is an especially heinous sin. This is further evidence of the decline of American civilization and the apostasy of so many who name the name of Jesus Christ.

Monday, April 21, 2014

If we, as theists, believe that the universe is fundamentally personal in character, it follows that our ultimate understanding will not be in terms of things, which occupy space and may or may not possess certain properties, but of persons, who characteristically do things. Action, not substance, will be our most important category of thought. It is a truth too long neglected by philosophers--J. R. Lucas, Freedom and Grace, p. 111 (as quoted in Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action)

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Millions of Christians celebrate Easter every year, a day commemorating an event that distinguishes Christianity’s founder from all other religious leaders—the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s not about colored eggs or cute bunnies. It’s about one who claims authority over all creation as the living Lord. Is there good reason to believe this?

In a pluralistic culture, diverse religious ideas are often viewed as merely products of subjective faith. A religion is “true” if it “works,” if it gives a sense of meaning to life and a connection to a community of faith. Matters of objective fact are dismissed in order to avoid controversy and strife. However, Easter makes no sense apart from the reality of a historical event. The Apostle Paul wrote to the early Christians, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (I Corinthians 15:14).

In a free society every religion is allowed to make its case publicly without fear of censure. All have the constitutional right to practice any religion or none. But this does not answer the question of what faith—if any—one ought to embrace. Easter offers an answer based on the compelling evidence that the story of Jesus coming to earth to redeem his people from their failures is vindicated by his space-time resurrection from the dead.

No blind leap of faith is required to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is more than a nice religious idea. The Gospel accounts that attest to the resurrection were written by people in a position to hunt down and check out the facts. They were either disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John) or individuals who carefully interviewed those closest to the event they described (Mark and Luke). These accounts were written shortly after the events they narrate; there was insufficient time for such mythological additions as a resurrection. The Apostle Paul, writing sometime in the 50s, spoke of Christ publicly appearing to many people, many of whom were still living at the time he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). Had there been no resurrection, this kind of statement would have been suicidal, since hostile witness could have refuted Paul’s claim. We have no record of a refutation.

Moreover, all the New Testament books have been accurately preserved over time. Scholars have access to thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts from which to translate our modern versions of these books.

The earliest record of the Christian movement (the Book of Acts) reports that the church proclaimed a resurrected Christ as the source of its courage and drive. The first Christians weathered intense persecution for their resurrection-faith; yet they persevered—some even unto death. Had the notion of the resurrection been fabricated, it would have unraveled under the relentless social and political pressures it faced. As former Nixon aide Charles Colson has pointed out in his book Loving God, he and the other White House conspirators could not pull off the Watergate cover-up, despite their unmatched political clout. When the crunch came, the truth was quickly flushed out. The early Christians had no such power to obfuscate or intimidate; but they never recanted. Their resolve is best explained by their knowledge of the resurrection.

Those hostile to these determined followers of Jesus could have easily refuted the nascent movement by simply exhuming the dead body of Jesus and displaying it as the decisive evidence against any claim to his resurrection. Both the religious and the political authorities of the day had reasons to resent these Christians and to stop their evangelism. But there is no evidence that anything of the kind occurred. The tomb was empty.

Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is entirely different from the fascination many people have in supposedly supernatural events (of "The X Files" variety) that have no logical support. When Christians observe Easter they stand on the solid ground of history, looking upward with rational hope for a better life in the world to come.

3.Recognizing
God as the Evaluator would lead to a dangerous theocracy.

a.A
theological basis for law does not entail a theocracy; consider early

American law and jurisprudence.

b.An
unacceptable nihilism seems to be the only other alternative;

consider the USSR. Law and rights were created
by the State alone.

V.CONCLUSIONS: GOD CAN HELP US

A.Modernist
impasse is not solvable given its own premises: “God help us.”

B.God
as Ultimate Evaluator gives a solid basis for morality and civil law.

C.Two
qualifications to my argument

1.Not
a complete apologetic for Christian theism, although a foundation for
personalist theism and some suggestions. Many other arguments available.

2.Much
more is required for a good society than well-rooted, authorized civil law:
moral and spiritual renewal and consistency.

VI.RESOURCES ON GOD, MORALITY, AND LAW

A.Stephen
L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How
American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic
Books, 1993). Examines the secularization of law and how it marginalizes
religion.

D.Douglas
Groothuis, “Thomas Nagel’s ‘Last Word’ on the Metaphysics of Rationality and
Morality,” Philosophia Christi, 2nd
series, no. 1 (1999):115-122. A critique of one attempt by a notable
philosopher to establish objective morality and rationality apart from the
existence of God.

E.Phillip
E. Johnson, “Nihilism and the End of the Law,” First Things, March 1993, 19-25. A reflection on Leff’s dilemma and
how it relates to contemporary debates about civil law in America.

G.John
Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law
(Minneapolis, MN: Betheny Publishers, 1975). Considers the relationship between
civil law and theology.

H.J.
P. Moreland, Scaling the SecularCity: A Defense of Christianity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987). See especially, chapter four, “God and
the Meaning of Life,” for a defense of the claim that the existence of God is
required for objective morality and existential meaning.

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Friday, April 04, 2014

This film weaves several plots around the main story of a philosophy student who is challenged by an atheist philosophy professor to give arguments for God's existence. The young man takes the challenge, which exacts a cost on him, including the loss of his long-term girl friend. Other subplots relate to people considering Christian commitment in one way or another. (There is spoiler alert. I'll let you see how the movie resolves.)

The best actor is the atheist professor. However, he does not act much like a professor, since he is overly arrogant and gives few arguments for atheism. The student ends up studying apologetics and gives some decent arguments for God, including the argument from the Big Bang and biology. I could quibble, but I won't. How many movies list "apologetics research" in the credits? Rice Brooks is listed. I had not heard of him before, but he has written a book called God is not Dead. (I kept waiting for the student to check out my book, Christian Apologetics, in his research, but he did not. I will get over it.)

The rest of the acting is fair to poor and the film is overly cheesy in parts. Some of the characters are pretty thin and predictable. Nevertheless, it deals with ultimate matters with some wisdom, so it is not a bad film for both believers and unbelievers.

Let this encourage us to enter the secular world with the Christian message through films, books, articles, poems, plays, and in ever other way. Time is short; eternity long; our task is great.

I am thankful that my prediction that the movie would contain no apologetics was false!

Links

About Me

Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.